0
User voted I support the The Affordable Care Act.
0 votes
Mar 31, 2015

I actually support free to the user health care completely supported by the government.

C'mon guys... spend an EIGHTH of those dollars you spend on bombs and killing people in foreign lands on the health and welfare of our own citizenry... it's the Christian thing to do...

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Apr 1, 2015

@ArtMac: If health care is "completely supported by the government," then by definition it is not "free to the user." We the people would pay for health care with our taxes. Also, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, we spent 24% of the Federal budget on health care last year, and only 18% of it on the defense department:

cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258

Most of that money went to the care of the elderly (Medicare) and to the poor (Medicaid and CHIP). The rest went to subsidizing the insurance policies of people within a certain income range as part of the Affordable Care Act. So even though the government spent $836 billion on health care for its citizens, it didn't cover everyone 100%. Could you imagine what the bill would be if the government covered 100% of everyone's health care? Can you imagine how high your taxes would be?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted I support the The Affordable Care Act.
linked reply
0 votes,
Apr 6, 2015

First, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a private organization and will say whatever someone pays them to say, therefore making your "24%" of the federal budget being paid to healthcare highly suspect.

Second, the nebulous group known as "defense contracting" has secured a place at the hog trough to almost the unheard of level of 50% (if you're going to quote numbers, quote the government's numbers... while being mostly and intentionally skewed, they're going to be a bit closer than the tripe you get from "the independent organization known as Center on Budget and Policy Priorities".

I can imagine that if the government spent less money on bombs and bullets for overseas wars that seem to affect the oil industry far more intensely than the citizenry of this country, that most every person in THIS country would have a far healthier life.

And if you're that worried about paying more taxes, then I recommend you start a campaign to shake some money out of the top 10% wealthiest people, to include their lapdog corporations, to bridge any shortcomings in the profit stream for the federal government. Only thing is, you would no more succeed in passing laws that fairly and equally tax the citizens of this country, to include the laughingly called "corporate citizens", than you would roping the moon. The legislatures from federal to local are securely in the pocket of the people who pay the most, and here's the last hint of this conversation, it isn't from the citizens who PRODUCE money.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Apr 6, 2015

You don't like the source I used for budget numbers? Fair enough. But you're the one who says, or at least implies, that for an eighth of what we spend on bombs to kill people in foreign countries we could provide "free to the user healthcare completely supported by the government." Where's your source for that? If you reject my source for budget numbers, show me yours.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: